What's new
The Front Row Forums

Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

RD 4: Eels v Tigs - Game Day Thread

Gronk

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
73,538
I thought Packer was leading with his elbow, too - but the replay showed (to me, at least) that it was an accident; I think it woukd be very harsh to say that Packer lead with the elbow, and I hate the guy.
I dont think so ... kaysa got nail but i dont think it was intentional
The only difference between Burgess and Packer was the eye contact. The both lead with their elbows into the heads of the defenders.

Just saying that if you a serious about game related brain injuries then leading with elbow to the head intentional or not is bad for a defender and he will get time.

An attacker however is judged on his intent.

Inconsistent if you ask me.
 

Gary Gutful

Post Whore
Messages
51,727
Genuinely dont want to stink the place up, you guys have better things to worry about. Parra isnt that bad a team and we are genuinely nothing special. You guys play us again in a few weeks and you will probably get bragging rights then. I then expect Pou, Wittyfan and other Moses lovers to give it me then.

Tigers have been crap for at least 6 years now and of course have many years history of being crap, pre and post merger. Tigers & Parra are equal worst performing teams in the NRL. But when Ivan Cleary came to the club, its not a coincidence that the first thing he did was take Moses offer off the table. The ONE thing the Tigers have for them right now and the only thing that is getting them results, is they are a genuine team, each member fighting individually and collectively. Out of that we have gone from traditionally the worst defensive team in the comp to the best. As Rowdy said in the presser its a big thing knowing that the guy inside you and outside has your back.

Good luck guys....see you in a few weeks.
As if we are that f**ken sad that we would go on to the Tigers forum and give you shit if the Eels won?

What kind of a f**ken loooser would do something like that?
 

Gary Gutful

Post Whore
Messages
51,727
I wonder if Moses is actually part of the problem then. He seems passionate, even headstrong. Some players like Kenny and Norman and maybe Hayne are happy to give 85%, but Moses wants 110% (obviously the optimum number). This could cause friction.

To be clear I'm not blaming Moses, or any of them, but sometimes chemistry is important.
I hope someone is keeping stats on this. I’d definitely like to see some more consistency amongst those numbers.
 

strider

Post Whore
Messages
78,603
The only difference between Burgess and Packer was the eye contact. The both lead with their elbows into the heads of the defenders.

Just saying that if you a serious about game related brain injuries then leading with elbow to the head intentional or not is bad for a defender and he will get time.

An attacker however is judged on his intent.

Inconsistent if you ask me.
Well one major difference is that burgess did it with his leading arm carrying the ball ... kaysa got packers other arm .... i thought packer wasnt even looking at kaysa, he was more looking at the other tackler ..... you cant chop arms and elbows off - could maybe tie em down by his side tho
 

emjaycee

Coach
Messages
12,868
Well one major difference is that burgess did it with his leading arm carrying the ball ... kaysa got packers other arm .... i thought packer wasnt even looking at kaysa, he was more looking at the other tackler ..... you cant chop arms and elbows off - could maybe tie em down by his side tho
I bet he wishes he could have tied them down back in New York
 

Gronk

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
73,538
Well one major difference is that burgess did it with his leading arm carrying the ball ... kaysa got packers other arm .... i thought packer wasnt even looking at kaysa, he was more looking at the other tackler ..... you cant chop arms and elbows off - could maybe tie em down by his side tho

You missed my point. A tackler who makes contact with the head - intentional or not - will get penalised and perhaps put on report. He will then be dealt with by the judiciary and will be likely charged with careless or reckless etc.

That matrix does not apply to attackers who also make contact with the head. It seems that they are judged by intent.
 

strider

Post Whore
Messages
78,603
You missed my point. A tackler who makes contact with the head - intentional or not - will get penalised and perhaps put on report. He will then be dealt with by the judiciary and will be likely charged with careless or reckless etc.

That matrix does not apply to attackers who also make contact with the head. It seems that they are judged by intent.
I agree that attackers can get away with some shit at times .... and i have often wondered will they try and crack downor change rules cos its probably as open to future lawsuits as getting whacked when defending ... but theres only so much can be done, unless we wanna play touch

I think packer is a thug but i didnt think that was intentional
 

hindy111

Post Whore
Messages
58,498
Tigers score how many points in last 3 games prior to eels game?

Some seem to be missing the point. Apparently worse attack in league.
 

Gronk

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
73,538
Kaysa gets a mention here only from the angle that Packer did not get charged, so Burgess should have been found not guilty. I look at it from the player welfare angle and maintain that there can be zero contact with the head.


Burgess' plea over tough NRL call ignored

Sam Burgess' legal counsel had pleaded with the NRL judiciary not to make "too tough of a call on ball-carriers" before the panel's two-match suspension of the South Sydney star for dangerous contact.

The Rabbitohs were left "very disappointed" after Burgess was found guilty of making careless and dangerous contact on Canterbury defender Josh Morris in their Good Friday clash.

The English forward and his lawyer James McLeod claimed the ball-runner was merely bracing for impact when his forearm struck Morris' neck, as the Canterbury centre dashed across from marker.

Judiciary chairman Geoff Bellew told his three-man panel to ignore McLeod's "tough call" reference, insisting they only judge on the descriptors of the dangerous contact charge - that being it was careless, had unacceptable risk and was with the head or neck - and not on emotions.

But regardless, McLeod's request will be a talking point across the NRL going forward after two other other tacklers were seriously knocked down by hulking ball-carriers last week from restarts.

Burgess posted a now-deleted photo on social media over the weekend of Jason Taumalolo making similar contact with Isaah Yeo. This resulted in the Penrith defender leaving the field for a concussion check but the North Queensland star was not charged.

Parramatta hooker Kaysa Pritchard was also taken off in Parramatta's loss on Monday to the Wests Tigers after he joined a tackle on the far bigger Russell Packer.

In those instances, it's possible the match review committee decided there was no discernible movement of the offending arm and neither incident was even penalised.

McLeod's message was still resonating with a frustrated Rabbitohs camp who didn't take questions from media after Tuesday evening's hearing.

"Rules need to be given a common-sense approach and application in directness to the nature of the game," McLeod said.

"It would be too tough of a call on ball-carriers who are like the situation that Sam was in, to prohibit and make illegal the act of standing one's ground as ball-carrier and bracing for impact.

"Sometimes in rugby league, there are collisions which are somewhat awkward and unfortunate ... But it doesn't mean the cause of that is an illegal act on behalf of player Burgess."

Burgess also claimed he had less than a second to prepare for Morris' impact, which came as he travelled across the field from marker with the Souths' prop stuck on his own line.

But the panel of Dallas Johnson, Tony Puletua and Mal Cochrane took 15 minutes to disagree and side with NRL counsel Peter McGrath.

"He's not only braced himself but he changed the direction of the forearm and brought it into contact with Morris," McGrath said during the hearing.

The South Sydney forward will miss Friday's game against St George Illawarra and the following week's clash with rivals the Sydney Roosters, after carryover points from an earlier cannonball tackle took the ban beyond one week.

https://au.sports.yahoo.com/league/a/39716319/burgess-plea-over-tough-nrl-call-ignored/
 

Latest posts

Top